Bishop v. Bishop
Citation | 151 S.W.2d 553 |
Decision Date | 03 June 1941 |
Docket Number | No. 25668.,25668. |
Parties | BISHOP v. BISHOP. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Louis County; John J. Wolfe, Judge.
"Not to be reported in State Reports."
Suit for divorce by Lucille Juliet Bishop against Daniel S. Bishop. From a judgment overruling plaintiff's motions for amendment nunc pro tunc of a prior judgment so as to conform to a certain stipulation, and for execution, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Igoe, Carroll, Keefe & McAfee and J. W. McAfee, all of St. Louis, for appellant.
Claude W. McElwee, of St. Louis, for respondent.
SUTTON, Commissioner.
Plaintiff commenced her action for a divorce in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County on November 19, 1937. In her petition she charges, as ground for a divorce, that defendant has offered her such indignities as to render her condition intolerable. She prays judgment for a divorce and the allowance of alimony.
On December 3, 1937, the court rendered and entered of record its judgment as follows:
The stipulation referred to in the judgment was executed in October, 1937, and was filed on the day that the judgment was rendered.
Omitting caption and signatures the stipulation is as follows:
On February 27, 1940, plaintiff filed her motion asking that the judgment be amended nunc pro tunc so as to conform to said stipulation. On the same day plaintiff filed a motion for execution. The motions were heard together and overruled. Plaintiff appeals.
Upon the hearing of the motions, plaintiff testified that defendant paid her for a period of two years one-third of his earnings as a cartoonist for the St. Louis-Star Times, and that the last check she received from him was dated January 12, 1940; that on January 12th she received a check from him for $41.67; that up to May, 1939, she had received $45 a week; that when she was getting $45 a week he was earning $135 a week; that the payments she had been getting since May, 1939, had been at the rate of one-third of $125 a week; that defendant had not paid her the $200 annual allowance for clothing; that she became ill in October, 1939, and was in the hospital for twenty days, where she had a surgical operation, incurring a doctor's bill of $174, nurses' bill of $99.35, and a hospital bill of $147.20, of which $100 was for board and room.
When defendant ceased making payments on the basis of one-third of his income, as provided for in the stipulation, plaintiff filed the motions with which we are here concerned, and, being in doubt as to her remedy, also filed an independent suit, which is still pending, in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, to recover the amount claimed to be due under the stipulation.
Plaintiff contends that the stipulation signed by the parties and filed with the court is a stipulation for alimony, merely advisory in its nature; that it was filed to be made the basis of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Boysen v. McCullough
...to issue a valid execution thereon. Judgments, 33 C. J., sec. 667, pp. 1053, 1054; Koch v. Meacham, 121 S.W.2d 279, 281; Bishop v. Bishop, 151 S.W.2d 553, 557; Haynes Trenton, 108 Mo. 123; White v. Reity, 108 S.W. 601. Equity will always intervene to protect against a judgment procured by f......
-
Gardine v. Cottey, 41427
... ... We hold that the contract was illegal, void and against public policy. Beardsley v. Bass, 287 Mo. 393, 229 S.W. 1092, 1093; Bishop v. Bishop, Mo.App., 162 S.W.2d 332, 335; Crooks v. Crooks, Mo.App., 197 S.W.2d 686, 688 ... Respondents, however, contend that ... ...
-
State ex rel. George v. Mitchell
...Aylor v. Aylor, Mo.Sup., 186 S.W. 1068; Fisher v. Fisher, Mo.App., 207 S.W. 261; Landau v. Landau, Mo.App., 71 S.W.2d 49; Bishop v. Bishop, Mo.App., 151 S.W.2d 553, or make an alimony judgment a special lien upon particular property. When the trial court has rendered a decree of divorce for......
-
Jeans v. Jeans
... ... North, 339 Mo. 1226, 1232, 100 S.W.2d 582, 585(7), 109 A.L.R. 1061; Bishop v. Bishop, Mo.App., 151 S.W.2d 553, 556(2)]; but defendant's remarriage, although affording good ground for a motion to modify the judgment, would ... ...